I referenced this bill yesterday, and I'm glad to report that yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 9/11 Health and Compensation bill. New York lawmakers have been pushing for a measure like this for years, and the bill failed to pass when it was previously brought up in July. Finally the bill passed yesterday 268 to 160. Thirteen Republicans voted in favor of the bill and three Democrats opposed it.
The bill would provide free health care and compensation to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers that became ill as a result of their work at ground zero. These workers suffered illnesses as a result of breathing in fumes, smoke, dust, and other toxic materials. The bill lays out that over the next eight years, $3.2 billion would go to monitoring and treating the illnesses of 9/11 workers (with 10% of those costs being paid for by the city of New York) and $4.2 billion would be allotted to the reopening of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, which provides compensation for any job and economic losses. Up until this point, Congress has been giving money for the medical treatment of ground zero workers on an annual basis. However, the bill's supporters wanted the government to institute a more permanent health program, due to the fear that the annual renewal of these funds were subject to the political whims of Congress.
Those opposed to the bill were concerned about the cost of the bill. They brought up their usual complaint about how this is adding to the deficit. That's their answer to oppose anything (except when it's something they want passed. Like extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest. Or, you know, passing stuff during the Bush years that led to this huge deficit in the first place). Opponents feel like this is just another big government entitlement program that would be a burden on taxpayers. I think this is a cause definitely worthy of the cost. I agree with the supporters of the bill that argued that the country has an obligation to help these workers that risked their lives during a time of national crisis.
Similar legislation is pending in the Senate, though it most likely has a much tougher fight there since Republicans have enough votes to filibuster the bill. I hope they do the right thing, and allow ground zero workers to get the health care and compensation they deserve. (Full Story)
A judge in Ontario, Canada has overturned a brothel ban in the province. Three prostitutes brought their case to the Ontario Superior Court, and they argued that the brothel ban forced them to risk their safety by having to go onto the streets. One of the prostitutes told the court that she had been beaten and raped many times. A very high profile case against Canadian serial killer Robert Pickton, who killed at least six sex workers (and most likely many more) in Vancouver, has brought increased attention to the dangers of street prostitution.
Judge Susan Himel ruled that national laws banning brothels, solicitation of clients, and managing sex workers violated the constitutional guarantee of "the right to life, liberty, and security". She said, "These laws...force prostitutes to choose between their liberty, interest, and their right to security of the person." Judge Himel also urged the Canadian parliament to regulate the sex trade instead of banning brothels.
The national government is considering appealing the ruling. There's a fear that other provinces could follow. If the government does not appeal, the ruling will go into effect in 30 days. Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government will "fight to ensure that the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution." Those that supported the overturned laws fear that the ruling could make Canada a haven for human traffickers. (Full Story)
This is definitely a serious and contentious subject, and I think there are valid points made on both sides. Though I agree with the brothel ban. I think that prostitution is going to continue regardless, and I would much rather have sex workers be in a safer environment where there is protection and oversight. Plus, this allows for better regulation in order to protect sex workers and their clients. For instance, many brothels have rules in place where workers need to get tested for STDs on a regular basis and the use of condoms is required.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
September 29, 2010
There has been a lot of news lately on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy, which requires that openly-gay soldiers cannot serve in the military. There have been efforts to repeal DADT. A federal judge in California (U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips) ruled in early September that DADT violates the Constitution. She said the policy is a violation of due process and First Amendment rights. The judge can issue an injunction to stop the military from discharging openly gay service members. She allowed the government time to appeal the ruling. (Full Story)
President Obama supports the repeal of DADT, but the (Obama administration) Justice Department defended the law before Judge Phillips. The White House says that the legal filing by the Justice Department is a part of government procedure by defending an act of Congress that is being challenged. They say it does not detract from the president's efforts to get DADT repealed. Though...it kind of does, if we're being honest here. I know it's procedural for the Justice Department to defend an act of Congress, it's just too bad that an administration that supports the repeal is further holding it up.
Last week the Justice Department objected to the injunction to stop the DADT policy. The Justice Department said that immediately ending the military's ban might harm military readiness as we're in a time of war (they do realize that ending a ban on openly gay service members means more people could be in the military, right? You know, like the kind of people that actually want to serve, but they can't because they're openly gay). The Justice Department urged that the injunction should be limited only to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans that brought this case before the court (in other words, only gay service members belonging to the Log Cabin Republicans will be affected). The Justice Department also urged Judge Phillips to wait until the Pentagon completes a study on how to integrate gay people into the ranks (Um, they're already in the ranks. All you have to do is not fire them simply for coming out. There, study complete). The Justice Department attorneys said that Congress is debating this issue and that Judge Phillips would be overstepping her bounds if she halted a policy under debate in Congress. (Full Story) (Full Story)
In another case, a federal judge in Tacoma, Washington (U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton) heard the case of a U.S. Air Force flight nurse. Major Margaret Witt was dismissed after coming out as a lesbian. She joined the Air Force in 1987 and was suspended in 2004, just short of retirement. She sued to get her job back. Her lawyers argued that the flight nurse had outstanding performance in the service, and that her sexuality never caused any problems in her unit. Air Force attorneys argued that DADT has to be uniformly obeyed in order to maintain morale and order in the military. Judge Leighton ordered that the flight nurse should be reinstated "at the earliest possible moment." If she returns to the military, she will be the first person allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military as a gay person. (Full Story) (Full Story)
Last week, the Senate took up the DADT repeal, but the effort was stalled. Not a single Republican sided with the Democrats in order to begin debate on the defense authorization bill that included the repeal. One reason Republicans were against the defense authorization bill is that an amendment was attached that would grant legal status to young immigrants who attend college or join the military. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is the one Republican that supported the repeal in the Armed Services Committee, but she was opposed to the defense authorization bill because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) limited the number of amendments that could be offered (though Reid said he would work with Republicans to allow amendments). So, she was opposed to it on procedural grounds.
It's so disheartening when legislation is stalled because of procedural issues -- not that it got voted down, but that it's not even able to get to the point of a vote. It reminds me of when Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) got so upset that Republicans (and some Democrats) voted against a bill that would provide health care and compensation for 9/11 rescue workers that became sick as a result of their rescue efforts. Republicans had voted against it for procedural reasons (Democrats employed a procedural move that wouldn't allow amendments. They didn't want excessively partisan amendments tacked on to delay or kill the bill. As a result, they needed a two-thirds majority to pass the bill) and it didn't pass. Rep. Weiner had an outburst on the floor and said that members often say 'oh we want amendments and debate'...and then they still vote no. He continued, "And then they stand up and say 'oh if only we had a different process, we'd vote yes.' You vote yes if you believe yes! You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing!" It's extremely unfortunate that Congress has not yet repealed DADT, and even more unfortunate that the legislation has stalled. (Full Story)
The Texas State Board of Education has been at it again! Last week they adopted a (nonbinding) resolution that urges textbook publishers not to provide a pro-Islamic (or Islamic-biased) viewpoint in world history textbooks. The board members in favor of this resolution are worried about world history textbooks having too much Middle Eastern influence, and there's a fear of textbooks pushing a "pro-Islamic, anti-Christian" viewpoint. They say textbooks are devoting more lines of text to Islam than to Christianity. First of all, this is world history textbooks we're talking about...and 68-71% of the world's population is not of the Christian faith. Second of all, what textbooks are they actually referring to? I have been out of school for a few years, so maybe things have drastically changed, but I highly doubt American textbooks are even coming close to presenting a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoint. Does mere mention of the Islamic faith qualify as being pro-Islamic, anti-Christian?
The resolution also claims that "more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly, as they are doing now." Yeah, that would be really terrible if a single group of textbook-buyers had the ability to influence textbook content and have the content reflect their personal beliefs... Oh, you know, kind of like...the Texas State Board of Education. It's funny that they call the textbook industry an oligopoly, when it's their socially conservative board that wields huge influence and power in the textbook industry. The Texas school system is so large that if Texas urges textbook publishers to make changes in textbooks, they often will. This then affects the textbooks available to other states. Thus, the Texas revisions have national implications. Furthermore, in response to their above quote, I can't imagine Middle Eastern countries looking to buy American textbooks have a huge amount of influence on what textbook material is published.
President Obama supports the repeal of DADT, but the (Obama administration) Justice Department defended the law before Judge Phillips. The White House says that the legal filing by the Justice Department is a part of government procedure by defending an act of Congress that is being challenged. They say it does not detract from the president's efforts to get DADT repealed. Though...it kind of does, if we're being honest here. I know it's procedural for the Justice Department to defend an act of Congress, it's just too bad that an administration that supports the repeal is further holding it up.
Last week the Justice Department objected to the injunction to stop the DADT policy. The Justice Department said that immediately ending the military's ban might harm military readiness as we're in a time of war (they do realize that ending a ban on openly gay service members means more people could be in the military, right? You know, like the kind of people that actually want to serve, but they can't because they're openly gay). The Justice Department urged that the injunction should be limited only to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans that brought this case before the court (in other words, only gay service members belonging to the Log Cabin Republicans will be affected). The Justice Department also urged Judge Phillips to wait until the Pentagon completes a study on how to integrate gay people into the ranks (Um, they're already in the ranks. All you have to do is not fire them simply for coming out. There, study complete). The Justice Department attorneys said that Congress is debating this issue and that Judge Phillips would be overstepping her bounds if she halted a policy under debate in Congress. (Full Story) (Full Story)
In another case, a federal judge in Tacoma, Washington (U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton) heard the case of a U.S. Air Force flight nurse. Major Margaret Witt was dismissed after coming out as a lesbian. She joined the Air Force in 1987 and was suspended in 2004, just short of retirement. She sued to get her job back. Her lawyers argued that the flight nurse had outstanding performance in the service, and that her sexuality never caused any problems in her unit. Air Force attorneys argued that DADT has to be uniformly obeyed in order to maintain morale and order in the military. Judge Leighton ordered that the flight nurse should be reinstated "at the earliest possible moment." If she returns to the military, she will be the first person allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military as a gay person. (Full Story) (Full Story)
Last week, the Senate took up the DADT repeal, but the effort was stalled. Not a single Republican sided with the Democrats in order to begin debate on the defense authorization bill that included the repeal. One reason Republicans were against the defense authorization bill is that an amendment was attached that would grant legal status to young immigrants who attend college or join the military. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is the one Republican that supported the repeal in the Armed Services Committee, but she was opposed to the defense authorization bill because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) limited the number of amendments that could be offered (though Reid said he would work with Republicans to allow amendments). So, she was opposed to it on procedural grounds.
It's so disheartening when legislation is stalled because of procedural issues -- not that it got voted down, but that it's not even able to get to the point of a vote. It reminds me of when Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) got so upset that Republicans (and some Democrats) voted against a bill that would provide health care and compensation for 9/11 rescue workers that became sick as a result of their rescue efforts. Republicans had voted against it for procedural reasons (Democrats employed a procedural move that wouldn't allow amendments. They didn't want excessively partisan amendments tacked on to delay or kill the bill. As a result, they needed a two-thirds majority to pass the bill) and it didn't pass. Rep. Weiner had an outburst on the floor and said that members often say 'oh we want amendments and debate'...and then they still vote no. He continued, "And then they stand up and say 'oh if only we had a different process, we'd vote yes.' You vote yes if you believe yes! You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing!" It's extremely unfortunate that Congress has not yet repealed DADT, and even more unfortunate that the legislation has stalled. (Full Story)
The Texas State Board of Education has been at it again! Last week they adopted a (nonbinding) resolution that urges textbook publishers not to provide a pro-Islamic (or Islamic-biased) viewpoint in world history textbooks. The board members in favor of this resolution are worried about world history textbooks having too much Middle Eastern influence, and there's a fear of textbooks pushing a "pro-Islamic, anti-Christian" viewpoint. They say textbooks are devoting more lines of text to Islam than to Christianity. First of all, this is world history textbooks we're talking about...and 68-71% of the world's population is not of the Christian faith. Second of all, what textbooks are they actually referring to? I have been out of school for a few years, so maybe things have drastically changed, but I highly doubt American textbooks are even coming close to presenting a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoint. Does mere mention of the Islamic faith qualify as being pro-Islamic, anti-Christian?
The resolution also claims that "more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly, as they are doing now." Yeah, that would be really terrible if a single group of textbook-buyers had the ability to influence textbook content and have the content reflect their personal beliefs... Oh, you know, kind of like...the Texas State Board of Education. It's funny that they call the textbook industry an oligopoly, when it's their socially conservative board that wields huge influence and power in the textbook industry. The Texas school system is so large that if Texas urges textbook publishers to make changes in textbooks, they often will. This then affects the textbooks available to other states. Thus, the Texas revisions have national implications. Furthermore, in response to their above quote, I can't imagine Middle Eastern countries looking to buy American textbooks have a huge amount of influence on what textbook material is published.
And I love how "religious discrimination" pretty much equals "we feel there's not enough stuff on Christianity." And let's be clear, this board is not a principled proponent of equal coverage for all religions. That's not the real issue here. They're not complaining that Buddhism or Hinduism doesn't get as much coverage as Christianity, for example. They wouldn't complain about Christianity getting more lines of text than Islam. The issue here is of course Christianity -- their faith. And they want their faith to get more attention -- or, they don't want their faith to lose attention to other religions. This is an issue of fear -- fear of "outsiders", fear of immigrants, fear of the changing nature of America that is moving away from the domination of white Christians. This resolution reflects the terrible trend in this country of anti-Muslim rhetoric. (Full Story)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
September 28, 2010
The Census Bureau has recently released a report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage for 2009. According to the census data, income inequality reached a record high in 2009. In other words, the income gap between the richest and poorest Americans is the widest it's ever been recorded (the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967). [This data excludes capital gains. Inequality in earnings between the rich and poor would be even higher if that was take into account]. Those in the top 20% (those making more than $100,000 a year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S. Those below the poverty line (approximately 14% of Americans) made just 3.4%. The income ratio is now 14.5 to 1 -- two years ago it was 13.6 and in 1968 it was 7.7. In elementary school math terms, that means for every one pie those below the poverty line get, the richest 20% get 14.5 pies.
The United States also has the largest rich-poor gap among Western industrialized nations.
The census data also revealed that four million additional people fell below the poverty line in 2009. The total reached 44 million Americans. That is one in seven Americans (14.3%). That's the highest percentage it's been in 15 years. The increase was steepest for children -- now about one in five children (21%) live in poverty. That is a 5% increase since 2000.
The United States also has the largest rich-poor gap among Western industrialized nations.
The census data also revealed that four million additional people fell below the poverty line in 2009. The total reached 44 million Americans. That is one in seven Americans (14.3%). That's the highest percentage it's been in 15 years. The increase was steepest for children -- now about one in five children (21%) live in poverty. That is a 5% increase since 2000.
This rate could be higher and millions more could have fallen below the poverty line if it weren't for expanded unemployment insurance and other assistance (and yet Republican Senators still try to block the extension of unemployment insurance. Fortunately, their most recent attempt at obstruction was foiled when Republican Senators Collins & Snowe voted with the Democrats to end the filibuster). Another way people have gotten by is moving back in with their parents or other relatives, or sharing homes with nonrelatives. Timothy Smeeding, the director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said, "A lot of people would have been worse off if they didn't have someone to move in with." Census data has shown an 11.6% increase in the number of multifamily households over the last two years.
The poverty rate in 2009 for non-Hispanic whites was 9.4%, 25.8% for blacks, 25.3% for Hispanics, and 12.5% for Asians. There was an increase in poverty for all groups, except for Asian Americans, whose rate remained unchanged.
The number of U.S households that receives food stamps increased by 2 million last year. This brings the total up to 11.7 million (or one in ten) households receiving food stamps -- the highest amount on record.
The percentage of Americans that are below half the poverty line ($10,977 for a family of four) grew from 5.7% in 2008 to 6.3% in 2009. That is the highest percentage since 1975 (when the government first began tracking this group).
Lower-skilled adults that are aged 18-34 experienced the largest jump in poverty last year due to the dwindling labor market. This group has been hit hard by unemployment, especially as employers often kept on or hired older workers.
Another interesting finding from the census report is that the number of U.S. residents without health insurance rose to 51 million in 2009 (up from 46 million in 2008. Yeah, we definitely need to repeal the health care reform law, right Republicans?!). Though, this number is expected to drop as the health care reforms begin to take effect. (Full Story) (Full Story)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)